The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What is going on at Fukushima? > Comments

What is going on at Fukushima? : Comments

By Tom Quirk, published 6/4/2011

Human deaths from the nuclear accident at Fukushima are likely to be rare, or non-existent.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Some invaluable information on MOX Fuel reactors (1/2 hr mp3):

http://www.tucradio.org/MOX_ONE_OlsonCabasso.mp3
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 10:04:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What would you expect from an associate of the IPA?

Meanwhile I much prefer the assessment of the nuclear situation altogether which can be found on this site:

http://www.llrc.org
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 10:37:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho Hum - I looked at your post .. 417,000 cancers by 2061..

Bbbwwwhahahahah! Oh come now, didn't get a least a little sus when you saw the figure? There weren't that many cancers from Hiroshima, and not anything like that number from Chernobyl.. while that guy has an impressive title what's he's really on about is low level dosage.. that is, claims that very low level dosage will cause some proportionate increase in the background count of cancers.. rather than (as is generally believed) no change at all. He's pushing a barrow in other words.

Also note the long end date, when anyone who is middle aged at the time the disaster will be dead anyway - quite a few from cancers. Whether you could seperate even that enormous figure from background is an interesting question. Our good professor, also note, extended the "affected" site to 100 kms from the reactor which covers quite a lot of populated area.

It is amazing the total nonsense that turns up even in the refereed science in issues like this.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 11:40:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
curmudgeon, I agree, the giveaway in Ho Hum's statement

"Meanwhile I much prefer ... on this site" .. I much prefer (doom! Please tax me harder!)

Says it all really, given the amount of available information, some people want the worst possible slant on things, and ignore the rest.

There is an excellent dosage graph from information is beautiful, I know xkcd did a great one as well, but IIB is selling theirs ($2.50) and all donations go to the Japanese disaster relief fund .. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2011/radiation-dosage-chart/ sorry, I usually don't post links but this is very good.

For information, and an objective outlook go to Prof. Barry Brooks site www.bravenewclimate.com , he's an AGW believer, but is honest and easy to work with, and knows his nuclear stuff.

For scaremongering and doomsaying, the usual sites you go to, like Ho Hum refers to above, I don't know any, since I avoid all the paid scaremongering shills.

If you have to get donations to stay in the doom business, of course you're going to pump out what sells to the fools who fund you .. more doom! It's like reports from the eco groups, surprisingly all predict doom and sea rise and drought, snow, storms, floods, starvation on and on.

Amazing that they always get the kind of report they commission?

No of course it's not surprising, wake up!
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 12:20:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus - some good stuff there.. been meaning to catvch up with Brooks site.. tnks..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 12:29:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 64 thousnd dollar question is any of you pronuke guys willing to buy a house and raise a famly say 5 miles away from Fukushima? I get the feeling there will be some cheap land going?

No didn't think so.
Posted by cornonacob, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 1:35:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cornonacob .. sure, no problem, why would I have a problem?

It's not as bad as all the fearmongerers make out, never is. I'm not scared of it, nor are my kids, because I do not fill them with silly rubbish, I teach them science, not fear.

I'd prefer it if they built the nuc plant 5 miles from where I live in Australia though.

My Japanese is terrible.

At least then all the ecowhackos would move somewhere else, which would be so worth it to have all that energy, and no one complaining.

You could leave too, and then the rest of us could sail into the next century as we progress.

We'd probably come up with a vehicle engine with like, thousands of horsepower, from highly developed electrical engines, with no thought to limiting our usage.

It would be so cool to have bucketloads of Nuclear Energy, just awesome! Everyone could have MONSTER TV screen. Heat your house, water, your garden if you like, with electricity.

While elsewhere, you would be waiting for a windy day so your radio might work for a little while, or maybe peddle your bike to make the genny give up some of your precious energy, before it craps out and you're unable to fix it or build a new one.

Imagine if we have not been caldicotted, where we'd be now, what sort of reactors we'd have .. but of course, we will always have those who want to limit progress, to deny us a bright future, won't we?

Ah the possibilities .. hey, why not have a state in Australia where we could all go and live, with Nuc power, and you all could go somewhere where there is none, and we'd agree, nay, insist, that we never sell you any.

See what your kids think when you have "renewables" and we have Nuc.
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 1:54:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cornonacob

No probs, but I have a counter question for you. Would you be prepared to raise a family five kilometres from an oil refinery, bearing in mind that - to my surprise - a major fire has been raging at a huge oil refinery in Japan, pouring thousands of tonnes of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and its hardly rated a mention in the media.

Instead the nuclear stuff, which should rate far below the oil refinery fire at Chiba in terms of actual danger and long term consequences, gets all the press. go figure..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 3:14:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom, there is some reassuring stuff in your article but it does not provide much information or promote any real understanding of the issues.

We have come to expect that sections of the media and OLO members of the public will engage in utterly irrational and ill informed rhetoric.

This is a serious incident; the authorities in Japan are either unable or unwilling to provided detailed assessments on the actual situation or the risks. This provides many with the opportunity to “fill in the void” with their favorite nightmares.

You well know that there are processes and procedures to deal with this situation and we all hope they are being applied however, you might at the very least have mentioned some of the key “misinterpretations” and even deliberate “untruths” being peddled.

“The Helicopters are dropping sea water on the reactors”?

Supported by repetitive video and media commentary, who could fail to believe this? As you well know, this was done firstly to increase the water shield in the cooling ponds to reduce dose rates and secondly to effect “wash down” to allow engineers to work in a safer environment. Nothing to do with cooling the reactors which are in any event, sealed in containment vessels. All Navy ships are likewise equipped with precisely this “salt water wash down” system when operating in “radiation contaminated” scenarios.

“Smoke, steam and fires” Yes there has been. Firstly, from the explosive Hydrogen gas emitted by the “venting” process which caused so much damage to the buildings cladding and ancillary infrastructure (mostly inconvenient and cosmetic). Much of the residual “smoke” is caused by oil fires from the auxiliary diesel generator fuel. Which also explains why the generators could not be quickly restarted as the fuel was contaminated by sea water.

Melt Down”. Whilst some damage may have occurred to fuel rods and/or the zirconium cladding in the early stages, under normal (forced shutdown) circumstances these would be removed, replaced and the reactor restarted. “Melt down” is an emotive word associated with “Explosive Reactions” which irrationally strikes dread into an ill informed public.

TBC.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 3:51:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued;

Whilst serious on any level, this simply means anything between damaged cladding of the rods to a full melt down where “corium” melts into the base of the containment vessel. Nor do any of these scenarios imply “explosions”. These reactors shut down automatically when the earthquake struck; there is simply not enough remaining energy in the reactor cores to generate enough heat to cause further core damage. The temperature required for this is 1,500 degrees centigrade. There is not enough energy left in this system.

“Contamination” You did well in explaining the products of U-235 and went some way to reducing the “fears” associated with cesium and iodine 131. What you failed to explain was where these contaminants originated. Venting the containment vessel emits these because other particles are heavier and do not get vented. In addition, one of the cooling ponds leaked as a result of the earthquake, thus the salt water from helicopter quenching became contaminated and uncontained. It therefore leaked into the sea. (Iodine and cesium contamination). Not from the reactor containment vessels but from the cooling ponds.

“Containment Vessel Failure”.

“Some Units May Have Cracked”

Really? So are you now going to explain if this has happened? Why it might have happened, is it the outer concrete? is it the steel containment? What indications are there? What the consequences might be, and more critically, what is the difference between such a possible crack and taking the “lid off” the containment vessel to remove the rods for normal maintenance? If you have contacts in the nuclear power generation industry you should use them before writing your article.

Some might suggest that you are actually making the public more alarmed, because of your omissions.

If you do think it is “too early to make any informed judgment”. I would agree. In the meantime you are little different to those who are alarmist and ill informed, in the absence of fact, you speculate.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 3:53:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc - I don't disagree with a word you say but the authorities in Japan are only partially to blame. Once one journalist says or writes "meltdown" then every other journalist involved has to say "meltdown". If he or she doesn't then the editors or sub editors put it in for them, as part of the process of "correcting" and "improving" the copy.

There is a cultural tendency in journalism to gravitate to the worst possible explanation and maintain fictions.. such as the water being used for cooling, as they are understandable fictions.

If you try talking sense in a newsroom (I didn't try) during the emergency, they just look at you. Nuclear power is obviously dangerous and this just confirms what they knew all along - so they will tell you. Appeals to sense and reason after the event are far more likely to make headway.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 4:50:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is not a balanced article.Even the Japanese Prime Minister is very alarmed.One reactor is spewing out plutonium.It only yakes one millionth of a gram of Plutonium to kill you.It is not the amount of back ground radiation that is dangerous but the nature if it.

Fukushima by any measure is a disaster.It is many times larger than Chernobyl and is no where near under control.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 5:14:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Update.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704587004576242950653122000.html?mod=dist_smartbrief#articleTabs%3Dcomments

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-nuclear-20110406,0,2697428.story
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 6:24:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure, nothing to worry about with what is going on at Fukushima!

Small fish do not travel as backpackers, they grow and go to sea where they become food for migratory fish such as tuna.

It is madness to be complacent about Fukushima danger, impact and consequences.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/06/3183332.htm
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 6:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus.see http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/04/fukushima-plutonium-leakage-and-radioactive-water Arnie Gunderson is the chief engineer for Fairewinds and Associates.He is very alarmed.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 7:49:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Several sources state that a lethal dose of plutonium range from approximately 1-30 milligrams of plutonium per kg body weight. If you like I can provide you with the sources, or if you have seen them I can post a link to basic mathematics (i.e. 1 milligram is not one millionth of a gram).

But don't let pesky things like facts get in the way of a good story.

My challenge is for everyone to compare the deaths caused per watt electricity produced between any electricity generating source currently providing baseload power.
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 7 April 2011 12:05:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza.So Arnie Gunderson who hae been involved in the building of many reactors know less than you? He said an millionth of a gram will most likely set off a deadly cancer.You are talking about immediate death by radiation.See his site http://www.fairewinds.com/
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 7 April 2011 6:29:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,
Gunderson seems like a genuine and sincere person, an expert too. I have not seen the plutonium mentioned in Aus news.
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 7 April 2011 6:51:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plutonium is not produced at Fukoshima .. stop imagining things to scare yourselves.
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 7 April 2011 7:07:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting statement, rpg...perhaps these reactors produce mayonnaise

....in any case, that's not what TEPCO says,

However, according to NHK they did say, "...the No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima plant was powered with uranium-plutonium mixed oxide fuel,,,it cannot identify which reactor released the plutonium because plutonium is produced at other reactors using uranium fuel".

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/06_40.html
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 April 2011 7:26:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
poirot

"1. Plutonium detected in the soil around the plant. A few isotopes of plutonium (Pu) have been found in soil at various test sites at the FD plant. This has sent some folks on Twitter apoplectic. So where does it come from?

One theory, and quite a reasonable one, is that it is the global residual left over from the extensive atmospheric atomic weapons testing of the 1950s — 1970s. That would help explain the presence of Pu-238, for instance — an isotope not readily created in a power reactor.

http://bravenewclimate.com/ Professor Barry Brooks, Australia

You get your facts from the Media, I get mine from scientists .. go figure

stop scaring yourself .. read Barry's site .. he is in touch with other experts, the mass media have no clue but to compete to scare you, clearly doing a great job - mind you if you prefer hysterics and fiction, please avoid Barry's site continue to hunt down fictional rubbish.
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 7 April 2011 7:56:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg,

You should have included a little more information to your quote from Barry Brook's site, such as:

"Another thought is that there is a local source, either from volatisation of sloughed material in the drying spent fuel ponds, or perhaps from the reactor cores...Remember Pu is present in all spent fuel....All reactor fuel elements that have been fissioning will contain plutonium."

You stated that plutonium was not produced at Fukushima.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 April 2011 8:16:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mon amie, don't believe a word Brook (without the 's' rpg) says - he is an 'alarmist' just like myself :)
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 7 April 2011 8:28:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So happy to hear you get your facts from scientists, rpg. Going by your record, nope.

If you've been following the site rpg, it's Fukushima with a 'u'.

Scientists have to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's.

You must be an "engineer" then - what 'type' nobody knows.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 7 April 2011 8:41:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have all paid writers of the nuclear industry come together in this one forum?

It seems a bit weird that normally here I read a lot about how much we are endangered by CO2 and the temperature rising up to 2 degrees in a hundred years and so on while the real catastrophe in Japan that is happening now does not seem to bother too many,

I follow discussions of experts in Europe where much of the nuclear technology comes from, and Siemens has indicated two days ago they might abandon their nuclear business completely since they just misjudged the dangers and now think it is impossible to control.

The Japanes PM Kan has said 3 days ago they expect it might take up to a hundred years to get Fukushima under control. Certainly people will get paid during that time, by the taxpayer, which means they will pay for the electricity that has been used until today. I guess they won't like that too much.

But they have to pay. The nuclear plants are not insured. That is the only business nowadays that does not need insurance since the potential damage is so high that no insurance company could cover it.
Posted by renysol, Thursday, 7 April 2011 9:46:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have all paid writers of the nuclear activist industry come together in this one forum?

wah! Panic!
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 7 April 2011 10:17:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

You are really blinded by your ignorance. Try science instead of websites.

Moss, William; Eckhardt, Roger (1995). "The Human Plutonium Injection Experiments" (PDF). Los Alamos Science (Los Alamos National Laboratory) 23: 188, 205, 208, 214.
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 7 April 2011 10:19:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You all need to see http://www.fairewinds.com/ Arnie Gunderson has had 25 yrs experience in decommissioning nuclear reactors.He knows a lot more than any of us.

I'm not totally against nuclear reactors.They should not be using Uranium.They should be using thorium reactors.The nuclear industry in its' present state is out of control.Fukushima was about wrong design,location,fuel,etc.They stored 40 yrs of spent fuel rods just above the reactors.

The nuclear technology is in its' infancy.There is better technology available but because if the huge initial capital outlay,companies want a return on their capital rather than invest in new safer technology.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 7 April 2011 11:52:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To put some of this in perspective a read of a piece from The Australian is worthwhile http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/indias-killer-cookers-a-recipe-for-disaster/story-e6frg6so-1225812222296

It's not a new article but it is very relevant to some of the earlier discussion.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 7 April 2011 12:30:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, nuclear technology is on its deathbed. If Hitech countries like Germany abandon nuclear that is a clear sign.

Interestingly in Sydney we have a nuclear reactor from the "hi tech" country Argentinia. Besides that I wonder if there are any other nuclear reactors worldwide IN such a big city.

Most of the 58 reactors in French are as far away from population centres as possible, preferably at the eastern border since the main wind direction is west, and in case of an accident chances are good the radiation will be blown right over the border and can't bother the French.

The companies are not concerned about their profits since the taxpayer pays most of the cost of nuclear. If nuclear power companies had to pay themselves a kilowatt hour would be more than 2 dollars.

Nuclear companies don't pay for - non existing - safe waste storage for around 250,000 years. It will be the people living in those distant times who have to pay.

Robert: What does the article about the chulhas in India have to do with nuclear. Do you suggest they build reactors to make electricity for cooking and heating?
Posted by renysol, Thursday, 7 April 2011 12:55:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everybody's alarmed. Why not? It's a serious situation. I'd be alarmed if there was a fire in a house in my street, but I wouldn't expect to burn to death. In terms of casualties ... none dead at Fukushima, and very likely it'll stay that way. Compared with ... how many people die worldwide each year in coal mining? A quarter million over the last two decades, I read somewhere. Nobody counts the dead who'd still be alive if they had sufficient technology to manage their environment rather than eat it. Electric power is central to prosperity, and prosperity reduces human fecundity. I'd like to see some scientist calculate the amount of CO2 saved by restricting population growth. Unfortunately, it's easier, and much more fun, to panic. The rule seems to be: when in trouble, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. I just can't be bothered any more. Or, as Lazarus Long once remarked, it's amazing how much 'mature wisdom' resembles being too tired.
Posted by donkeygod, Thursday, 7 April 2011 9:02:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes....and 300 hundred plus years.........and all will adapted in time........I hope so:)

Just dont build on fault-lines or as its well known.......The rim of fire.........I thought Japan and its people were smart?

I bet now their rethinking the whole deal:)

All Good For Australia.............not so good for NZ-land:), Greenland, and many others:) See! you can have unclear power in the right places, however, be smart enough to rocket all waste out to space:)

I mean....the earth is always moving....and what once was safe....in time, it wont be........and you young people will have to deal with it:)

Please think very carefully...........you wont get another chance.

LEA
Posted by Quantumleap, Thursday, 7 April 2011 10:52:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AREVA report leaked, presented and interpreted by Gundersen:

http://fairewinds.com/content/closing-ranks-nrc-nuclear-industry-and-tepco-are-limiting-flow-information

Some statements:

Reactor two containment likely breached.
Reactor four, core melt in fresh air.
Clearly we are witnessing one of the greatest disasters in modern time.
But in public the nuclear renaissance continues to move forward.

(Not any more in Europe, there is an ever larger movement of "enraged citizens" -word of the year 2010 in Germany- that are very successful in seperating decision makers from their decision making power. Like the demise of Angela Merkel who has been overtaken by the Greens and where they even have a green premier in one of the states since some weeks.)
Posted by renysol, Friday, 8 April 2011 8:18:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Clearly we are witnessing one of the greatest disasters in modern time."

0 death's, 0 serious injuries so far from one of the greatest disasters in modern times.

There is no credible evidence to suggest that there is a major ongoing public health risk likely to lead to large numbers of deaths or illness. There is a risk from contamination that need's to be addressed and which may have a significant economic impact. There is a risk still to be determined to seafood.

Ten deadliest natural disasters of the past century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters)
Rank&; Maximum death toll; Event*; Location; Date;
1. 145,000–2,500,000 1931 China floods China 01931-11-01November 1931
2. 242,419-779,000 1976 Tangshan earthquake China 01976-07-01July 1976
3. 300,000-500,000 1970 Bhola cyclone East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) 01970-11-01November 1970
4. 234,000 1920 Haiyuan earthquake China 01920-12-01December 1920
5. 230,210+ 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Indonesia 02004-12-01December 2004
6. 222,570[7] 2010 Haiti earthquake Haiti 02010-01-01January 2010
7. 142,000 1923 Great Kanto earthquake Japan 01923-09-01September 1923
8. 138,000+ 2008 Cyclone Nargis Myanmar 02008-05-01May 2008
9. 138,000 1991 Bangladesh cyclone Bangladesh 01991-04-01April 1991
10. 120,000 1948 Ashgabat earthquake Turkmenistan 01948-10-01October 1948

It's estimated that 1.6 million die annually as a result of using bio-mass fuelled stoves.

That's one of the big problems with this debate, it's clear that an industrial accident which has not killed a single person (and is unlikely to kill many if any) is worse that the deaths of hundred's of thousands (or millions) becauase it's nuclear, not because of the actual harm done.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 8 April 2011 10:21:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bless you, R0bert, for graphically putting Fukushima into perspective. The terror some people feel for nuclear power is intellectually on par with Haitian terror of magic — when cholera broke out, they initiated an urgent relief program by killing the witches who were spreading it. Caught several hundred in the act, according to news reports. There's no difference at all, really. It's a matter of belief: facts, science and reason have nothing to do with it. Some people believe witches can kill by conjuring cholera, others believe that Chernobyl killed millions and it's all been hushed up. Apparently quite a few are certain that Fukushima and Chernobyl are pretty much the same thing. You can't argue with that mindset — try, and the 'believers' assume you're part of a conspiracy to cover up The Truth. Truth is out there, of course ... if you bother to look, if you've an open mind. Jonathan Swift found The Truth quite some time ago, and he put it this way: 'There's none so blind as they that will not see.'
Posted by donkeygod, Friday, 8 April 2011 11:24:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cigarettes were ok, nobody died on the day of smoking them. Now we know differently. We are told 18,000 cigarette related deaths occur in Australia annually.

Maybe one day we will learn how 'stuff' leaking out of FGukushima and other similar situations has a fatal impact in years to come.

Which is the biggest industry, tobacco or nuclear? Similar dollar value and influence maybe?
Posted by JF Aus, Friday, 8 April 2011 2:06:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Cigarettes were ok, nobody died on the day of smoking them. Now we know differently. We are told 18,000 cigarette related deaths occur in Australia annually."

The thing is smokers are more likely to die of certain types of cancers than non-smokers.

Nuclear power has been around for around 60 years but is not universally distributed. If nuclear plants were in fact having the effect you suggest Australia should have one of the lowest cancer rates in the developed world. We have one small research/medical reactor in Sydney with a large geographic distribution of population.

There is plenty of material on line about cancer rates around the world. Feel free to demonstrate a correlation between nuclear facilities and cancer rates in the population. Again Australia with little nuclear infrastructure should have a massively lower cancer rate than countries with a large number of reactors if there is a yet to be admitted impact on cancer rates.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 8 April 2011 3:13:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passive smoking takes place in the same room or the next table. Radiation circulates in air currents and animal life around the world. There is animal migration. Imported food is also a likely source of whatever. Some countries export their low quality or expired date food to other unsuspecting countries. Then there is gross ignorance of the marine environment, especially the food web. It looks to me like there may be very serious impact and consequences for the marine food web from what is going on at Fukushima. The whole situation is NOT showing in the following:

http://blog.asrltd.com/home/2011/4/5/fukushima-daiichi-radioactive-seawater-model-april-5.html
Posted by JF Aus, Friday, 8 April 2011 10:47:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy